I recently went to a university symposium – a kind of mini-conference – on the subject of ‘Heritage in the 21st century’, which was interesting. It also prompted me to reflect again on how we combine writing and talking, and I couldn't help concluding we could do a better job of it.

I found the topics interesting – e.g.the role of sound in ruins, or places in Britain associated with authors and literature. And most speakers brought their subject to life by showing plenty of photos. But during some of the talks, I found myself drifting away after just a few minutes. I think my lapses of concentration had a lot to do with the general format of the event: people reading from scripts with the audience seated in rows of chairs all facing the screen.

What sometimes puzzles me is that, all around us today, we see high standards of public speaking and writing – in radio, TV, books, newspapers, web talks, and so on. Yet those who organise and speak at conferences generally seem to be lagging behind. I’m not saying that the speakers I saw did a bad job, given the context and culture that they work within. Indeed, one of the keynote speakers was brilliant: it was obvious from the moment cultural historian Robert Hewison stood up that he would be a pleasure to listen to. Even though he clearly had a script in front of him, he projected his voice, his talk flowed and was both provocative and informative. And he spoke without a single PowerPoint slide.

But my experiences of academic conferences does leave me wondering what is going on here. I feel that people convening and participating in such events are really missing a trick. Below a few immediate thoughts and suggestions:

1. To read or not to read? I think it is completely understandable that people give talks with a piece of paper in their hand. Often we fear that, without a script, we might forget what we wanted to say or that our thinking will come across as unstructured. But there are ways of reading out loud that keep the attention of the audience – by reading slowly, making frequent eye contact with those listening, and finding opportunities to extemporise and expand beyond the script, to name a few. (I watched Mike Leigh do all these things last night at the BAFTA ceremony, and despite losing his place in the script once or twice, he remained engaging and interesting.)

2. The (lost?) art of oratory. Rhetoric, or the art of public speaking, was central to education for centuries in both the Ancient and Mediaeval worlds. Isn’t it time to return to studying the art of oratory? Aristotle distinguished three aspects of rhetoric: logos, pathos and ethos and that still seems a good starting point. I was once schooled in the McKinsey way of organising presentations, which is based on Barbara Minto’s Pyramid Principle. This method is useful but it privileges just one aspect of rhetoric – logic.

3. Storytellers’ methods. Another way of thinking about structure, commonly used by storytellers, involves identifying the ‘bones’ of your story and then improvising. Or you can imagine you are taking your listeners on a journey, in which case all the preparation needed is to identify a few significant landmarks or stages in the journey before setting off.

4. Putting asides in the centre. Going back to the symposium that got me thinking about all this, I should declare an interest: one of the speakers was my husband. What I noticed particularly about his talk was that the most engaging moments were those where he looked up from his script and improvised, usually by making asides that gave us a glimpse of the depth of his knowledge about his subject and of his sense of humour. When he and I were reflecting on the event, I wondered out loud if there might be a way of putting asides and improvised remarks at the centre of the talk. In my experience, any form of structure can work, even a very non-linear one, provided the speaker believes in what he or she is saying and speaks with energy and confidence (one could call it ‘presence’).

5. What if we all had to earn our living from our writing and public speaking? I was struck by the thought that Robert Hewison, the most engaging speaker, has earned a living from his writing and broadcasting. The need to earn money may be a healthy constraint. Those who need to do so cannot afford to write dull texts. They have to pick subjects that interest sufficient numbers of people, be willing to say something provocative, express themselves clearly, tell a good story and be good at both writing and speaking.

6. Innovative forms of gathering people together. There are many newish ideas and practices out there – ‘open space’ events, the ‘fishbowl’ method, large group meetings with everybody sitting in one big circle, to name just three. One newer and refreshing form that I have come across more recently is the ‘pecha kucha’, where speakers are limited to a maximum of 20 slides (images) and can talk for 20 seconds per slide (making a total of 6.7 minutes).

One of the most radical forms I know sounds the most deceptively simple: the convening and conducting of a grown-up group conversation.

Which form works best depends on what we are trying to achieve. In my experience, the grown-up or free-flowing conversation without any formal agenda is rare but well suited to sharing and exploring lived experience or discussing ideas. I personally find this form of gathering both fruitful and fascinating, because it also allows those taking part to notice what is happening in the room and reflect on it in real time.

Some excellent suggestions here. I too have just returned from a conference where all the keynotes were read from a script, with mixed results. As you point out, I don't think having a script as such is necessarily the problem - the delivery is all-important, and this partly depends on how the script is written. It is possible to write for performance: shorter sentences, composed with intonation in mind. If, as a speaker, you are going to rely on a script, is also important to adapt a script to the local context/audience. This is something that tends to occur spontaneously when there is no script, but that can be easily forgotten otherwise. I've just returned from a conference in Spain where some North American speakers delivered beautiful (scripted) performances, but with no attention or concession made to local issues or concerns. This was noted and not appreciated.

Reply

Alison Donaldson

16/2/2015 04:21:37 am

Thank you for your excellent comment, Monica -- fresh from Spain! The bit about adapting to the local audience is so crucial.

Another reader sent me a personal email and some of his words echo your point about writing for performance. He has made numerous radio programmes, so really gets the difference between written and spoken language. (He uses an interesting layout in his email, as you can see -- though it may get disrupted through copying into this box):

- i know that i now write the talks i have to give in a completely different way
from before; i used to write for the page and then try to read it, now
i write for the ear - like a playwright rather than a novelist ..
it's a completely different approach to language (which writing for radio
forced me to adopt)

Reply

Leave a Reply.

​

Subscribe to this blog

If you subscribe, I'll send you an email at irregular intervals (not more than once a week) with a link to a new post. You can unsubscribe easily at any time.